9/11 Discussion Thread

I also found a retraction from the Author.

"I am prepared to admit that my initial proposal as to how steel was sulfided during the 911 events needs to be modified. Certainly it looks like diesel fuel, gypsum, concrete and aluminum alone are not going to do it ....."

You can seen the thread here where he participates.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/s...eam-doesn-t-support-nist-t391.html?mobile=off


Hardly a retraction if you read on, more of a revision.

You really must realise that the truther blogs have an agenda. ;)
 
:D

There is a lot more than that in the paper (including other possible sources of suphur)

As for Thermite generally:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

You really should watch the video LoneShaman just posted. Sulphur is not common in building materials. Sheetrock is ok to be put directly on steel. And of course, as I keep repeating, these chemical reactions would be wildly important to the world of construction in general if they actually occurred. Everyone would have to know about them if they were real.
 
You really should watch the video LoneShaman just posted. Sulphur is not common in building materials. Sheetrock is ok to be put directly on steel. And of course, as I keep repeating, these chemical reactions would be wildly important to the world of construction in general if they actually occurred. Everyone would have to know about them if they were real.

Exactly. And that is what the FEMA guys specifically state, this is important. And it was ommitted from the offial report.
 
Nope. Nice try.

He already posted that one. Much of it is irrelevant to what is being discussed. It consists mostly of strawman and adhom tactics, speculation, denial of molten metal, (plus great lengths to explain it in other pieces) a misrepresentation of the science and the arguments. That was instantly recognizable. That article is particularly weak, and mainly concerns the sliced beams which would be from the clean up process. With some claims we have already substantiated as being false.

I have been reading a lot on the actual research and science involved. And learning lots! There are some professional scientific refutations of several of the articles on that blog that go into great detail of the physics and chemistry how he twists and changes them to suit his needs. Very detailed and very revealing. I learnt a great deal from those alone.

It is what is called a citation bluff in essence.

The good thing about coming in on this so late, is that these things have been already refuted even by demonstration, patents and practical application.
There is a huge percentage of old and outdated misinformation around. And it certainly obfuscates any serious attempts for someone when pseudo skeptics continue to perpetuate false information. It does not go away. They do not make retractions. At least the Author of that paper did, but it is still used as a scape goat.

Who needs propaganda agents when you have people like this. And they are not too rare a breed.

This stuff can be researched, if one has an open mind, answers to questions of physics and chemistry can be found, experiments can be done, actual data can be found. Sometimes you have to stop and study something you don't know, i do that constantly.

But you will not get any of that from these types of blogs. That is not possible. It can not be considered reliable at all for logical reasons and evidential reasons that can be found if you actually bother to look.

But any excuse is seized apon without question, even when they know they are uncertain of what the actual science says, and this is skepticism?

No it is pseudo skepticism.
 
Last edited:
I've been looking into 9/11 for a few days now, and while the the twin towers are surrounded by wonkyness, I find the cases of the other two planes to be even more strange, especially flight 93.

Flight 93 crashed in the field in Pennsylvania, right? There were a lot of witnesses who saw it nose dive into the field. There have been rumors about it being shot down, but I was viewing some witness testimony the other evening, and most of them said they saw an intact passenger jet doing a nose dive.
 
Flight 93 crashed in the field in Pennsylvania, right? There were a lot of witnesses who saw it nose dive into the field. There have been rumors about it being shot down, but I was viewing some witness testimony the other evening, and most of them said they saw an intact passenger jet doing a nose dive.
What do you make of it all?
 
What do you make of it all?

I don't know at this point. That crater is weird. Not sure how that happened. There was that one dude who saw that anomolous plane flying into the sun or whatever. That was strange... Some people were making an issue of the fact that one of the engines was discovered a half mile away from the impact point. But I don't see why that's such a big deal. That sucker hit the ground at quite a velocity. I'm no expert on these things, but I'd suspect parts to be flung all over the place, far away too. I mean, what else am I to suspect? Is the alternative theory that it was shot down, and that's the reason parts were strewn all over? I have no problem with that, as I haven't looked into much at this point.

All the "conspiracies" about no plane hitting the pentagon turned out to be rubbish as far as I'm concerned, which makes me a little skeptical of any alternative theories about the Shanksville scenario (just as far as how it crashed, not what caused the crash). I take eyewitness testimony pretty seriously. When people make claims about their observations, I believe them. There are always discrepancies around the margins, of course, but when a hundred people on an overpass see a plane go into the pentagon-- that's irrefutable. I don't think people are collectively-hallucinating, delusional misfits. And that goes for everything. UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot... People see what they see and there's no way around that.

eta: Rumsfeld, however, said it was shot down. That's interesting.
 
Last edited:
I don't know at this point. That crater is weird. Not sure how that happened. There was that one dude who saw that anomolous plane flying into the sun or whatever. That was strange... Some people were making an issue of the fact that one of the engines was discovered a half mile away from the impact point. But I don't see why that's such a big deal. That sucker hit the ground at quite a velocity. I'm no expert on these things, but I'd suspect parts to be flung all over the place, far away too. I mean, what else am I to suspect? Is the alternative theory that it was shot down, and that's the reason parts were strewn all over? I have no problem with that, as I haven't looked into much at this point.

All the "conspiracies" about no plane hitting the pentagon turned out to be rubbish as far as I'm concerned, which makes me a little skeptical of any alternative theories about the Shanksville scenario (just as far as how it crashed, not what caused the crash). I take eyewitness testimony pretty seriously. When people make claims about their observations, I believe them. There are always discrepancies around the margins, of course, but when a hundred people on an overpass see a plane go into the pentagon-- that's irrefutable. I don't think people a collectively hallucinating & delusional misfits. And That goes for everything. UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot... People see what they see and there's no way around that.

eta: Rumsfeld, however, said it was shot down. That's interesting.


I watched this on Saturday and thought it was a pretty interesting notion. This woman basically proposes that a drone struck the Pentagon and most of the damage done to the Pentagon was done by explosives. It's a 3 hour vid, but interesting nonetheless.
 

I watched this on Saturday and thought it was a pretty interesting notion. This woman basically proposes that a drone struck the Pentagon and most of the damage done to the Pentagon was done by explosives. It's a 3 hour vid, but interesting nonetheless.

Cool. Thanks for sharing. I'm going to watch it right now.
 
4104_Michael_Rieger_9-21-01-fema_cl.jpg
 
Exactly. And that is what the FEMA guys specifically state, this is important. And it was ommitted from the offial report.
Well, it was sort of omitted. Appendix C to the FEMA report dealt with two samples: #1 from WTC7 and #2 from one of the towers. As far as I know sample #1 wasn't dealt with in the NIST report on WTC7 (I admit I haven't checked). However NIST did obtain sample #2 and did a study of it similar to the study performed by FEMA. And they explicitly compared their findings to the findings of the FEMA report. The results are in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C pp. 229-233.

Put briefly the NIST conclusion is that they are able to identify that the column could have been no higher than the 53rd floor well below the impact zone. Hence they infer that the corrosion couldn't have happened before or during the collapse (they are here relying on the fire induced collapse hypothesis). And so it follows that the corrosion must have happened in the debris pile some time after the destruction fo the tower. This is actually also mentioned as a possibility in the FEMA report. But the experiment performed by Jon Cole, which NIST did omit to perform, seems to rule out this possibility.
 
Well, it was sort of omitted. Appendix C to the FEMA report dealt with two samples: #1 from WTC7 and #2 from one of the towers. As far as I know sample #1 wasn't dealt with in the NIST report on WTC7 (I admit I haven't checked). However NIST did obtain sample #2 and did a study of it similar to the study performed by FEMA. And they explicitly compared their findings to the findings of the FEMA report. The results are in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C pp. 229-233.

Put briefly the NIST conclusion is that they are able to identify that the column could have been no higher than the 53rd floor well below the impact zone. Hence they infer that the corrosion couldn't have happened before or during the collapse (they are here relying on the fire induced collapse hypothesis). And so it follows that the corrosion must have happened in the debris pile some time after the destruction fo the tower. This is actually also mentioned as a possibility in the FEMA report. But the experiment performed by Jon Cole, which NIST did omit to perform, seems to rule out this possibility.

Thanks Ihl.

Yes, the FEMA paper makes no conclusions before or after, perfectly fair.
Hardly surprising NIST claim after, no other choice really, but it still can't account for it. Personally I find all the manuevering quite transparent. There is no source of elemental sulfur within building materials. Rather than a anomally it actually makes perfect sense in relation to the other evidence.

It seems to me that these are not separate anomalies at all, they do have a relationship, and this is exactly what we should expect to see. And it would certainly go further in explaining the collapse over that ridiculous obviously fabricated story.

That big beam from the other buildings in the above seems to indicate similar thinning. It does not appear isolated. The image of John Gross and that beam show the same in dramatic fashion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top